|
Actually, our group for many years has taken our rest periods to be 12 hours, meaning all the spellcasters can take first or last shift without interrupting the time needed to rest and prepare spells.
We've always ruled that taking watch is an interruption, and the casters take first or last watch. It's a good justification for bringing cohorts and followers, to spread the duties out.
Of course, sometimes the adventure does not permit that period of time, in which case, spellcasters are usually exempted from watch. On rare occasions, we are in such hostile territory that there is no way to get the required rest and spellcasters simply can't recover their spells. In the most extreme cases (very rare) noone gets any rest and everyone's effectiveness starts to drop from fatigue.
I actually kind of like this, as it takes on the feel of epic adventrues when everyone is battling to overcome adversity. Overcoming that adversity is what produces epic stories and heroes.
In the 2E Dragon Mountain campaign, the writers took great delight in reimagining kobolds as a force to be reckoned with, detailing tactics that made them dangerous to higher level parties. (Don't forget these were the days before 'monsters with PC levels').
The lessons of 'Tuckers Kobolds' from the Dragon magazine forums had been well-learned, and the scenario described many tactics that were not core rules in 2E at the time, describing ways to bypass armour (scorpions lowered on fishing poles, honey and wasp nest bombs), overbear, trip, etc.Once it was known they had intruders, they did everything they could to break the PCs' ability to function, including having roaming patrols making noise to keep all casters awake.
The 'Kobold Oompah Band' will always be one of those memorable hazards from that time.
I have to agree. There is no class that SAD's better then a wizard. They can dump Cha, WIs and Str, and likely even Dex if they like (base 10 or 12). They need Int and some Con, and that's about it.
==Aelryinth
Never saw that in a game before. Most of your players must be geniuses, because I notice mine have a tendency to look at the warrior types with envy when they mention their Dexterity, Constitution scores. And I note they tend to get pounded on hard, because my NPC villains attack whoever they can get their mitts on, ESPECIALLY the squishy ones with the big firepower.
Also, I find that Wizards need Dexterity far more than Constitution, if only to shore up their horrible physical weaponry//BAB and to hit with ranged touch attacks that are subject to firing into melee penalty (-4).
I can certainly understand why a Wizard might want to go Eldritch Knight even if it does end up costing them 2 caster levels. I like the class, but you have to be incredibly careful to play one.
Do your wizard players care more about killing things than winning a battle? Do they buff themselves instead of the fighters? It sounds like your players are not playing to the strength of the class. The wizard's job was never to kill things, and if they spend too much energy on trying to kill things they will draw aggro and get themselves smashed.
In response to the original post:
Wow. Your players sure did some stupid crap. Even if you made a mistake or two along the way, I'm flabbergasted anyone is painting you as the bad guy.
Disagree. There are simply too many that are needed. Here's a list:Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature, Planes, Religion just to identify all forms of beasties.
Because your other party members can't take knowledges. The wizard alone is respnsible for identifying every monster
Spellcraft to do their jobs,
That's one.
as well as Appraise because you need that to identify how much moolah is it worth when you sell it.
Because no other class has appraise as a class skill, am I right?
Stealth because the entire party moves solely on the worst Stealth check out of the bunch.
I wasn't aware that most parties stealth everywhere. Must make over land travel a pain since you can only move 6 miles per day without stealth penalty.
Eventually you might need Fly
Every spell that lets you fly gives you a bonus to the skill. You don't need a single rank in the skill if you have good dex.
as well, and Linguistics to read odd ancient documents.
That's a maybe. There's a spell for that.
That means just plain too many Int skills for someone to run around with and use. Even with a 20 Int, you are looking at perhaps 8 at most skill points per level, not counting Human. Yes, it's possible to jack that up to 36 Int by 20th level. All I can say is, either take a straight up human or Elf with Darkvision if you want to be a Wizard.
The only skill a wizard actually "needs" is spellcraft. Everything else is just "nice to have".
Besides, as I pointed out, you don't need fly and every class except the Cavalier has at least one knowledge as a class skill. So unless you just want to be able to do everything by yourself without any help from your team 2+int per level is more than enough.
Racially, you need:
Darkvision so you don't have to carry a light source and give yourself away while using Stealth. Bonus to Int (spells and all those skills) and Dexterity (touch spells and firing into melee, not to mention AC, Init, Stealth, Reflex saves).
This doesn;t really have anything to do with anything... sooo... that's fun.
Mostly, I notice that players running Wizards (but not me, I run them differently) tend toward spells like Scorching Ray. Zorching. Also, I run enemies intelligently, so in a game world where folk like Wizards exist, enemies will attack those that display those abilities, and if word gets out all of them will do so in a given adventure.
Side note: Kobold Oompah Band?! That's the funniest trick I've heard of in ages!
I think that perhaps it's best if the heavy armored types also take first or last watch, that way they don't have to gear up all over again. So Wizards would probably compete sometimes with the Fighter as to who is getting which shift.
How intelligently was your DM, Wind Chime, running those threats? Did they respond to your tactics? If so, you shouldn't have had such an advantage. Oh, and some of those spells only last a round per level, which is kinda short for a full battle. They can drag on for a while, if the enemy is using cover and "dirty" tactics.
Mostly, I notice that players running Wizards (but not me, I run them differently) tend toward spells like Scorching Ray. Zorching. Also, I run enemies intelligently, so in a game world where folk like Wizards exist, enemies will attack those that display those abilities, and if word gets out all of them will do so in a given adventure.
Side note: Kobold Oompah Band?! That's the funniest trick I've heard of in ages!
I think that perhaps it's best if the heavy armored types also take first or last watch, that way they don't have to gear up all over again. So Wizards would probably compete sometimes with the Fighter as to who is getting which shift.
How intelligently was your DM, Wind Chime, running those threats? Did they respond to your tactics? If so, you shouldn't have had such an advantage. Oh, and some of those spells only last a round per level, which is kinda short for a full battle. They can drag on for a while, if the enemy is using cover and "dirty" tactics.
If your wizards care more about blasting, then they need to learn how to wizard better imo.
Blasting is fun, but there needs to be more to it than damage, otherwise you basically wear a big sign that says "hey bad guys! I'm the biggest threat, attack first!!!!!"Not that wizards should never do damage, but they should not appear to be the biggest threat on the battlefield.
Tactics also should revolve around putting the wizard in a safe spot where the bad guys cannot get to him, my favorite vision of this is the god/controller style wizard turning invisible and flying and never directly drawing aggro because he's away from the fight, and not attacking anyone.
That said, if you are the DM and your players are drawing all the attention to the casters because of all the damage and blasting they do, then you are doing it 'right' in the sense that the bad guys oughta know to attack the biggest threats. If they are not blasting away and exploding everything in a way that makes it obvious that they are the bigger threat, then it's entirely meta game that your bad guys know to attack the casters before they focus on the BBGG that is supposed to be at the front of the party. If that is the case, I suggest you revise your bad guys' tactics to be more appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, there is limited space, and some of the baddies (like ogres and zombies) aren't all that bright. So, sometimes they don't figure it out, sometimes they just can't get to the squishy ones because of limited real estate.
Yeah, my players aren't as bright as I wished for. I prefer an eclectic mix of spells, everything from buffing to damage to crippling spells, personally. Crippling spells vs the big guys, area damage vs the little ones, buffing PC's vs big guys.
Intelligent ogres and trolls, having intelligence when it comes to traps, ambushes and killing can be truly scary enemies.
I've taken parties out with ogre skirmishers, chars lost badly to ambushing trolls, and laid a few traps of you can take this troll, but they are really ready for you (sea troll near a deep river trench).
In the 2E Dragon Mountain campaign, the writers took great delight in reimagining kobolds as a force to be reckoned with, detailing tactics that made them dangerous to higher level parties. (Don't forget these were the days before 'monsters with PC levels').
The lessons of 'Tuckers Kobolds' from the Dragon magazine forums had been well-learned, and the scenario described many tactics that were not core rules in 2E at the time, describing ways to bypass armour (scorpions lowered on fishing poles, honey and wasp nest bombs), overbear, trip, etc.Once it was known they had intruders, they did everything they could to break the PCs' ability to function, including having roaming patrols making noise to keep all casters awake.
The 'Kobold Oompah Band' will always be one of those memorable hazards from that time.
I have that campaign, although I never got to run it. I wish I had. Those kobolds would have made my players homicidal. Kind of like the kobold commandos in the original Baldur's Gate computer game. Hated those guys and their stinking flame arrows.
MM my take from this is you messed up a few things (points to the dead horse named rest & spells). But good God, I thought I had some special friends! I almost fell down laughing when I read the whole we don't need a melee brute NPC that the DM is giving us for free! Kobolds in that build? Bang and yell until they come out! "We survive, We be Wizards"! Sorry, I just have that impression of not bright characters, because well, s*#t they screwed up big time. Could, a team (key word there) of wizards survive, yeah, if done right and carefully. No, you should pull punches for player stupidity.
Pull punches because the players are stupid?! Don't ever do that! Instead, pound some sense into them, at least until they are willing to listen to your mild advice. Get them trained to think before they leap, they CAN learn, it's just that they don't have much Wisdom.
Dude, you should SEE what I can do with just a pack of crappy kobolds, you can turn a PC into a pincushion when you attack at night on a plain, with all the kobolds armed with nothing but shortbows...
Kobolds are cowards. They'd never take on a party of level 5 pc's unless they had one heck of an advantage or their backs were agaisnt a wall (or a dragon of course).
At the original poster, I wouldn't have done anything differently. After giving them a fair appraisal as to what they could expect, and they chose to ignore your recommendations, you were absolutely right to mop the floor with them. Good for you.
I have played the game for 30 years, and I've GM'd more than my share of whiny players who want GM's to cater to their every whim. Sorry, that's never been what D&D was intended to be. Problem being that these sorts of players eventually become GM's and then start running these types of games, and then you've eventually got tons of players who expect their GM's to cater to them.
While you have to compromise with your players to keep them happy and around for a prolonged game, when you as GM tell the lads how it is, and they choose to ignore your advice, then the gloves come off, and the consequences are what they are. That is a "referee GM." You impartially apply natural consequences of player choices. "Guide GM's" as Monte Cook refers to them, candy coat things and provide lavish player-friendly RP sessions where the group always comes out on top, no matter the insane risks the players take or the bad decisions them make. Nonsense. That type of DM'ing isn't even D&D.
Given time and consequences, they'll either figure out that they've got to play intelligently by the rulebook, and use basic common sense decision making skills, or they're going to get greased repeatedly. And if they don't like this, they're going to need to go look for a GM that's going to run the game the way the players dictate to him. Hardly a game at that point, and with no real risk, you're playing something other than d&d/Pathfinder. At that point, Recommend Candyland or another GM to your players in that case...
At the original poster, I wouldn't have done anything differently. After giving them a fair appraisal as to what they could expect, and they chose to ignore your recommendations, you were absolutely right to mop the floor with them. Good for you.
I have played the game for 30 years, and I've GM'd more than my share of whiny players who want GM's to cater to their every whim. Sorry, that's never been what D&D was intended to be. Problem being that these sorts of players eventually become GM's and then start running these types of games, and then you've eventually got tons of players who expect their GM's to cater to them.While you have to compromise with your players to keep them happy and around for a prolonged game, when you as GM tell the lads how it is, and they choose to ignore your advice, then the gloves come off, and the consequences are what they are. That is a "referee GM." You impartially apply natural consequences of player choices. "Guide GM's" as Monte Cook refers to them, candy coat things and provide lavish player-friendly RP sessions where the group always comes out on top, no matter the insane risks the players take or the bad decisions them make. Nonsense. That type of DM'ing isn't even D&D.
Given time and consequences, they'll either figure out that they've got to play intelligently by the rulebook, and use basic common sense decision making skills, or they're going to get greased repeatedly. And if they don't like this, they're going to need to go look for a GM that's going to run the game the way the players dictate to him. Hardly a game at that point, and with no real risk, you're playing something other than d&d/Pathfinder. At that point, Recommend Candyland or another GM to your players in that case...
It's nice to hear both sides to be honest. And I do appreciate having someone tell me that I don't suck as a DM and tell me that I need to step down for a change.
What my players and I have gotten out of the experience is that we should be taking the rules of the game more seriously, and we can still be casual about how we play. Most people cannot make that real. More often than not, someone taking the game casually means ignoring half the rules so the players can just plow through the campaign, which is how we played when we were all newbies, but no longer.I do believe we all gathered from the experience that there is a lot more enjoyment to be had by actually following the strict rules rather than ignoring them and letting everyone 'win' the game.
Examples include not ignoring encumbrance, the number of pages or the materials a spellbook is made of, the amount of sleep required to prepare spells, and what not.
At least for me, throwing on these little detail rules after my group had a decent mastery of the combat system actually added a dimension of newness and freshness that didn't take away from the game experience but actually enhanced it. I was devastated when my players whom with I had these revelations suddenly reverted back to the newbie mindset of ignoring the little things so we can just focus solely on combat so they can just enjoy blowing things up.
That said, after talking to my players about it, we have all learned from the experience, and now that I know my players don't actually want to play through an entire chronology of stories as a team of all wizards because they just wanted to test out an all wizard party, I can say that pretty much everything is solved.
If anyone gets anything from this thread I hope that it is "don't just cave in to what your players want, but communicate with them and balance the way you play the game so you have just as much fun as they do." And of course a follow up would be "you don't have to give up your own fun just to please some insatiable players."
The absolute best part about this whole experience is that my friends and I can keep anything that happens in game separate from our friendship. Being able to do that makes dealing with stupid decisions in game a lot easier because I know I don't have to feel bad about not deus ex machina'ing some BS way of them surviving the fight less I lose out on some friends. DMs of several decades will know exactly what I mean.
I should also note that my stepping up to DM came from the notion that we didn't have anyone in the group that wanted to, and I decided that being able to play at all, even if I have to front the campaign myself, was better than waiting for someone else to do it. Now that I've DMed with the actual intent of remaining the DM, I have a much better appreciation for the guy behind the screen, and when I play with other groups, I do everything in my power to make their job suck less, if it be impartially explaining some rulings to the other players at the table who have questions, or offering advice OOC about how I personally handle sticky situations.
I will also say that learning not only how to DM, but actually doing it and understanding the other side of the fence (or in this case cardboard screen) has actually made me a better player who knows to mind little rules and pay attention to simple mechanics that exist and know how to knowledgeably and modestly help out my DMs and fellow players. My advice to anyone reading this thread is to learn to DM themselves and actually DM a campaign with the mindset that you aren't a player, once you understand both sides of the game, it not only becomes a lot more fun, but becomes a lot easier to play and enjoy having perspective on what is or is not okay to ask for favors for.
It's nice to hear both sides to be honest. And I do appreciate having someone tell me that I don't suck as a DM and tell me that I need to step down for a change.At the original poster, I wouldn't have done anything differently. After giving them a fair appraisal as to what they could expect, and they chose to ignore your recommendations, you were absolutely right to mop the floor with them. Good for you.
I have played the game for 30 years, and I've GM'd more than my share of whiny players who want GM's to cater to their every whim. Sorry, that's never been what D&D was intended to be. Problem being that these sorts of players eventually become GM's and then start running these types of games, and then you've eventually got tons of players who expect their GM's to cater to them.While you have to compromise with your players to keep them happy and around for a prolonged game, when you as GM tell the lads how it is, and they choose to ignore your advice, then the gloves come off, and the consequences are what they are. That is a "referee GM." You impartially apply natural consequences of player choices. "Guide GM's" as Monte Cook refers to them, candy coat things and provide lavish player-friendly RP sessions where the group always comes out on top, no matter the insane risks the players take or the bad decisions them make. Nonsense. That type of DM'ing isn't even D&D.
Given time and consequences, they'll either figure out that they've got to play intelligently by the rulebook, and use basic common sense decision making skills, or they're going to get greased repeatedly. And if they don't like this, they're going to need to go look for a GM that's going to run the game the way the players dictate to him. Hardly a game at that point, and with no real risk, you're playing something other than d&d/Pathfinder. At that point, Recommend Candyland or another GM to your players in that case...
I for one would be happy to have either of you as a GM, I have not played at a table with a decent GM in so long, I miss having a good group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
but i dont think im being unreasonable.No unreasonable person ever does.
Seriously... the thread necromancy. It must stop. Especially when I end up agreeing with LazarX.